If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This is interesting, because in the past, users had a choice as to when or where updates would be applied. Now, there is no choice. MS just downloads it for you. Not that is a bad thing, but what if it was in some critical or bad time (especially for 56k users)? Now this does not apply to corporate editions of WinXP... and curiously enough, I have to agree:

Consent-based push, then. And pretty similar to what you already get in Windows Update, for sure. But what's it doing in the installation sequence?

I have no idea, but this is sure to make many wonder because of

And as he points out, this could be back door for future DRM technologies. Such a clause was smuggled into a security patch in June.

"Reasonable efforts to post notices" somewhere on the Web. I think it's clear from the wording that MS has absolutely no intention of bringing this behavior to our attention.

Hm. Everybody is probing and prodding in your OS now. What makes me wonder is the new proposal Bill Gates calls "Trustworthy Computing" as found in this article: How can this be trustworthy computing when there are so many fingers doing the things we are supposed to do in the first place? Can they just leave us alone and let us choose when we apply updates and better yet, not tell the whole world?